It’s what some might call a ‘happy coincidence’: Reports emerged that the decision not to prosecute former politician Greville Janner for alleged historic child sex offences, at almost the same time comedian Adam Hills was raging about the way politicians have been able to cover up such activities in the past.

The rant, on Channel 4’s The Last Leg, was well worth seeing. For those who missed it, here it is, but be warned – he uses extremely strong language:

In Janner’s case, we are told a barrister has spent several weeks examining the evidence as part of an independent review, and has concluded there should be a hearing of the allegations. A decision, expected next week, would overturn the Crown Prosecution Service’s decision in April not to pursue the peer, who is said to have dementia.

The move would put pressure on the Director of Public Prosecutions, Alison Saunders, to resign. She was criticised after it emerged that several other alleged paedophiles who have been diagnosed with dementia have still been pursued through the courts, and a review of the decision was announced last month.

The evidence could be tested in a criminal court in a ‘trial of facts’. The judge would declare at the outset that Janner is unfit for trial, but then ask a jury to decide – on the basis of the evidence – whether he committed the acts of which he has been accused.

There could be no verdict that he is guilty and no criminal sentence – but the jury could make a hospital order, a supervision order or an order for the defendant’s absolute discharge. This would be in order to protect the public, although it is unlikely that Janner is capable of any misdeeds in his condition.

This raises an interesting question: Can we have a ‘trial of facts’ in the cases of other MPs, against whom allegations have been made but who cannot – for many reasons – be punished?

The Blog has no intention of making unsupportable allegations but there are many questions hanging over the name Leon Brittan that deserve to be resolved – along with many others.

While the public may not need to be protected from them – especially if they are dead – isn’t there an argument to be made that they should not be held up as a good example to others, if the allegations about them are true?

I was expecting a reply like that. I would have the same opinion, no matter what party someone like that came from. Leon Brittan was not knighted. He was a Lord. My comments were not directed towards Lord Janner specifically, but all such suspects.

The loss or retentıon of Brıttan’s peerage and knighthood are irrelevant in considering the allegations and are only sıgnıfıcant once any “trıal of facts” ıs completed and a verdıct achieved….the same prıncıple of consıderatıon I hope would be applıed to Janner or even yourself or myself.

But a ‘trial of facts’ could be held to determine whether he deserved them – they could be used as leverage to get the hearing in the first place.
Do you hear any clamouring for Brittan’s innocence to be tested at the moment?

There should be no need for any leverage, the questıon of whether a ‘trial of facts’ ( a somewhat presumptıve soundıng term) should be determined on the evıdence avaılable and ırrespectıve of the ındıvıdual’s past or present standıng. Any decısıon on the retentıon or otherwıse of tıtles should be subsequent to the outcome.
No I have not heard any clamourıngs to protest Brıttan’s ınnocence….he ıs ınnocent untıl proved guılty and the onus ıs on the prosecutıon to brıng and prove a case.
Whether there is suffiıcient evidence to brıng Janner to trıal and whether he ıs fıt to stand trıal ıs a very dıfferent matter.

When I mentioned “clamouring for Brittan’s innocence to be tested”, that means people would be suggesting that he was guilty – not innocent.
In any case, you’re right – there’s no mention of him at all, and that’s how it will continue unless someone puts forward a reasonable pretext under which his innocence can be tested.
Can you think of one?

No doubt those that are partıculary keen to pursue the matter wıll ıdentıfy a pretext on whıch to do so. My ınterventıon on thıs topıc was sımply to clarıfy the posıtıon regardıng Brıttaın’s knıghthood and peerage not on what further actıon should or should not be taken ın respect of hım or, ındeed Janner.

One might wonder with what form of dementia Janner is allegedly afflicted.

Does it bear any similarity to the curious condition from which Ernest Saunders suffered so terribly in gaol and from which he made a complete (and miraculous) recovery almost as soon as he was released?

Yes, Brittan was knighted in 1989 but as you say nothing has been proved.
As regards ieonıc1963’s comment about Alıson Saunders, the decısıon was hers to take and there would have to be evıdence that she had delıberately not pursued the Janner case for reasons other than his apparent dementia. That she may have acted unwısely ıs one thing but, I suggest, perverting or preventıng the course of justıce ıs, I suggest,
. .

Hi Mike just to do justice to the survivors of Brittan check out Carl_Survivor and on twitter and his accounts of abuse by Brittan and also Exaronews and Janes account of rape at his hands. They like Janner have not been tested in court but they should be.

Mike as a retired Mental Health Nurse (qualified) I have to correct something in your blog. You state that it is “unlikely that Janner is capable of any misdeeds in his condition” if he has Dementia of any type it is highly likely his powers of control over his inhibitions will be compromised and therefore he is more likely to offend. This could be in law a defence of “not guilty by reason of insanity” unless the law has changed. I would welcome a lawyers opinion but medically he is more likely to offend again unless locked up ie hospitalised

“……………………….he’s under constant care and therefore would not have the opportunity to do anything.” Really? Good heavens, how gullible you are. These people – in case you haven’t heard – have their ‘playthings’ brought in from care homes and similar establishments. “It is far too easy to claim dementia as a get out”…….this is also true. It now seems to be the preferred ‘get-out’ for Police Officers wanting to evade ‘justice’. Also, in a Commons committee room this week Stuart Syvret, a one-time Channel Islands Senator, told it as it is: “Until the British justice system has a complete makeover, justice will never be delivered in this Country”. He claimed that he was stitched up by Judge Jonathan Sumption (copping a jail sentence and effectively being made bankrupt) who has recently been appointed to the UK’s Supreme Court. So Mr Syvret should probably know. If you don’t know, he has suffered this fate for attempting to save children from the fates worse than death that we can only imagine.

Perhaps best to read Mr Syvret’s blog. I have been unable to ‘join’ his blog as the ‘wordpress’ response to my request won’t allow me to – strange that. No, I’m not suggesting that his family and/or doctor’s are part of this ‘corruption’. If he is a paedophile (and I was hearing of such accusations, regularly repeated in London in 1982) then he’d be unlikely to involve them, surely? No, he’d rely on friends of a similar persuasion to obtain victims for him. That’s the way they’d operate – it’s a closed shop to a degree. They wouldn’t want any Tom, Dick or Chief Constable to know. If you’re unaware, Savill was mainly in cahoots (in the North) with a guy called Jaconelli. See more at ‘The North Yorks Enquirer’

The fact that for months after he first claimed to have dementia…he carried on with his duties in The House of Lords for several months..so he didn’t forget that he could continue claiming £300 PER DAY!

Secondly, all the time taken investigating him of late has allowed him to transfer most of his assets onto his family…presumably to avoid paying any compensation that might be awarded to his (alleged) victims…

Janner also signed a letter to the HoL asking for his seat to be kept available as he intended to return to sitting (as I recall) This was about a week after the original decision not to prosecute. It bore his signature, and indicated that he did not see his dementia as an impediment to being part of the legislature in the future, and also that he is not so seriously ill that he could not create and sign documents. This would not be the first case of someone prominent showing a medically impossible recovery from dementia once court proceedings had been ruled out.

After winning an Observer competition, part of my prize was lunch with Ernest Saunders together with other winners and the Observer colour magazine editor. This was a couple of years before he succumbed to Alzheimer’s (I believe) and he seemed quite normal then; he drank wine without dribbling. It’s reported that he’s the only human to have beaten that particular condition. I watched his progress closely.

I totally agree, strange how they suddenly have dementia, well prove it. But even if they do have dementia no reason why they cant be charged if there is absolute proof. No one should be allowed to get away with this type of allegation against them.

I believe Janner is just one of a number of paedophile politicians in all parties, active and retired. They should all be investigated and prosecuted. Strange how Janner can’t stand trial, but can still act as a Company Director.

Their dementia differs from our dementia the same way Zelebrity bankrupts can go on living extravagant lifestyles whilst us ordinaries find our worlds turned upside down.
I believe there are quite a few more of them still in Parliament, and I know with an almost 100% certainty that two MP’s were in several of the Witch Thatcher’s Cabinets that right now must be wearing smelly brown trousers, though there are probably more from across the whole political divide.

If Janner indeed has dementia and is incapable of functioning, can we then look towards the 304 times he still managed to attend the Lords claiming £300 a day plus expenses and the return of all this money?

We all know guarantee of freedom from prosecution is a cure for many diseases – as witnessed in the miraculous recovery from Alzheimer’s in the case of Mrs Thatcher’s friend General Pinochet.

Soon as he was free – total recovery. Maybe Janner will be the same. Pity we can’t find a cure for paedophilia as quick as we might for Janner’s convenient dementia.

Just to bring this discussion back to the original blog. It essentially is about the reversal of the decision not to prosecute Janner. Despite his medical diagnosis this should proceed to an examination of the facts. A judge will decide if the medical evidence holds up and hopefully his accusers will have their day in court. We have to remember, that contrary to what has happened in numerous cases in the past, this case was brought by the POLICE of Leicester who decided they had enough evidence to proceed with a prosecution. It was Alison Saunders who deviated from the correct procedure. She should have recused herself from the case given her history with Janner in her earlier career.

May I suggest that Police do not bring cases themselves. They collect the evidence and if they have sufficient which they believe will stand examination in Court, they will submit a file to the CPS for them to make a decision. In the days before the CPS – given to you I believe by Thatcher – it was the Solicitors Department of the Force involved who would make the decision. Here, judged by the vociferous objection by the Force involved, the evidence might well be overwhelming, hence their very unusual public pronouncement on the CPS ‘verdict’.

While you’re correct, I think you’re splitting hairs here. concernedkev said the police believed they had enough evidence to bring a case; you’re saying they believed they had enough for a case to be brought by the CPS. End result: A case is brought.
We all knew what concernedkev meant.

Or in this instance, a case was NOT brought (or do you know something that we don’t?). And we don’t all know what kev was meaning: Police do not bring a case to court like this without the say-so of the CPS. Maybe this from BBC TV text service today might interest you: verbatim. “NO COVER UP” IN JANNER INVESTIGATION. The Senior Police Officer most likely to have taken the decision not to arrest Lord Janner on charges of child abuse in 1991 says there was “no cover up”. Tony Butler said that the law in 1991 would not have allowed Police to have taken him into custody. (Page 2). He said there was no risk of the then MP fleeing, offending, destroying evidence or failing to co-operate. Lord Janner strongly denied the allegations in Parliament in 1991. Looks like he’s laid himself open here for criticism from the public – but nothing else because he’s long retired. For further illumination (not about abuse but arresting) check out Lord Hannington (google) and the BBC report there.

The CPS brings the case to court, Guy – you said so yourself. And a case is coming to court.
Interesting that the policeman you quote said there was no risk of Janner offending. I wonder if we shall hear contradictory evidence.

The man making the statement – and I presume he was the Chief Constable of Leicester at the time – is making himself look a fool. If they had sufficient evidence to charge him with a number of offences – and it seems that they did – then how can he argue that there was no likelihood of Janner offending again ?

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. This includes scrolling or continued navigation. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.